Respectfully Submitted

3) Jim Thompson gave a report from the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee. a. There is a concern about minors. A list of all minors is being compiled and will be posted. b. There is a concern as to who approves graduate level majors and minors. Should the entire faculty of a college approve (vote) majors/minors or just the graduate faculty? This is a concern in general but especially so with inter-disciplinary programs. Those in charge of college governance documents should review and clarify the necessary approval mechanisms. The assumption is that academic proposals are approved at all appropriate levels but it is not clear that this assumption is correct. 4) " Academic poaching " may be emerging (e.g. a department other than math offering a math course). There is no known case but there may be a need to monitor this situation. Department and college curriculum committees need to be more proactive in monitoring this concern in dealing with experimental courses and their approval. There is already a procedure to follow in filing an objection to an experimental course. 5) Geoff Abelson, Academic Standards and Admissions Committee, reported that an approval process is in motion for a Math proposal to more appropriately place students in Math. The issue of returning military veterans using their international experience as a substitute for the international perspective seems to be problematic because the intent of the Senate does not appear to be functioning. The process should be easier. It was suggested that a letter be sent to the Provost/Registrar regarding making this process easier and handled by the advisor via the audit form. There is a concern regarding entering freshman students bringing a large number of community college credits earned in high school and being used for ISU credit toward a degree. The rigor in these courses is the ongoing issue. ISU has no control over these community college credits and students acquiring these credits while in high school. While ISU probably cannot do much of anything about this matter at the high school or community college levels, ISU can set its own program and academic standards and require students to achieve them in order to complete a degree program. There will be further discussion of this issue. 6) It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2009 meeting. Some corrections were noted. Motion passed.

The "Red-Back" sends greetings to its thousands of friends ■everywhere, and wishes them all and singular, a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
"The action of the mosquito in transmitting the disease is not a simple inoculation from the sick to the well. In the first place, the mosquito can only become infected by biting the sick during the first three and a half days of the disease, and after the mosquito has become infected a period of from twelve to eighteen days must lapse before the mosquito can transmit the infection, and not exceeding six days thereafter the fever will develop in the person bitten."-Dr. G. M. Guiteras, Surgeon Marine Hospital Service.
Twelve to eighteen days, and (not over) six days incubation: Fifteen to twenty-four days via the mosquito route. * * * (CL. M. W. went from Clinton to C.'s funeral, at Edwards, Miss., September 7, 1897; arrived about 11:30 a. m., and left that after noon. She developed yellow fever at Clinton, September 10th, at night.
"M. C. went to C.'s funeral at Edwards. Miss., September 7th, 11:30 a. m., and left that afternoon for Nitta< Yuma, Miss., and developed yellow fever September 11th, night? '-Dr. H. R. Carter,. Surgeon Marine Hospital Service, in Medical Record, March 9, 1901. Dr. Jacob S. West, of Texas, is quoted as reporting two instances where coffee introduced infection. Both occurred in 1867, and are related as follows: "At Liberty, Texas, a sack of coffee landed two miles below townfrom the steamboat Ruthven, which coming from Galveston, was refused permission to land at the wharf. This sack was taken on a dray to Liberty. All who shared the coffee were stricken with fever, which spread with disastrous effects." "The second case was that of a sack of coffee which was hauled fifteen miles in an open wagon from Corpus Christi, where fever prevailed, to a point near Meansville, where it was divided among the purchasers. No one of them escaped and many of them died;, but those who did not so share, singularly enough, escaped." Keating reports on the source of infection at Covington, Tenn., as follows: "The only person who had the fever at Covington, Tenn., in 1878, was the postmaster, who received and opened a heavy mail that had been detained in the Memphis postoffice for some time.
In three days he died of yellow fever.
[ -"Ordinarily, in mid-summer, we can control an epidemic if the people can be moved to a camp; Fortress Monroe, 1899, for exam ple. As to the soiled material which was introduced into the little cabin [Reed and Carroll's experiment in Cuba] being sufficient upon which to base an absolute conclusion, is concerned, I point to the fact that in nearly every epidemic analagous instances may be found-La Roche teems with them-and cases of fever do not occur simply because the infection is absent. Stench and filth are incapable of producing infection. What does, is. shrouded in mys tery. The germs, as they are discharged from the human body, do not at first seem capable of infecting, but must remain for a time in an undisturbed atmospheric area which is suitable to their evo lution before infection is possible. Unless the proper meteorologi cal conditions prevail, the poison seems to be inert. An illustration of the conditions not being present, is founds in Keating's History of the Epidemic of 1878, in speaking of Camp Joe Williams, which was located near Memphis, and was peopled by a thousand or more refugees from the city. A number of per sons who had become infected before leaving the city developed tile disease after reaching the camp, but from such cases there was no spread. Surgeon R. B. Nall, who was in charge of the camp, says: "The remarkable and favorable feature of Camp Joe Wil liams, was that the disease did not spread amongst its inhabitants, nor did those who visited the camp from the surrounding country contract the disease. * * * * * * "On the arrival of the refugees, every article of bed ding and clothing which favored propagation of the disease was destroyed by fire. * * * * * * "Five of the eight male nurses employed in the hos pital, after nursing for three or four weeks fifteen or twenty patients in all stages of the fever, thinking themselves proof against the disease, went to the city to offer themselves to the Howard Asso ciation as nurses because of the higher prices paid. They found the sick bountifully supplied with nurses from elsewhere, and were unable to obtain positions, and returned to camp. Four of these men died in the hospital in which they had nursed-the fifth was found dead between the city and camp. The other three nurses did not visit the city, but remained in the hospital during the epi demic (seventy-two days), nursed and buried their comrades, but were mot attacked themselves." The foregoing is a plain, unembellished statement of a reputable physician, and contains several points of interest in connection with the recent investigations carried on in Cuba.
First. If the bedding and clothing in the hospital at. Camp Joe Williams during the summer weather did not become infected, is there not good reason to suppose that the material taken from Las Animas Hospital and Quemados in November and December ■escaped likewise? The non-immune physicians and nurses who attended. yellow fever patients in Las Animas in 1899 failed to develop the disease while there, but did develop it afterwards from an infected center. (Information from Surgeon H. R. Carter.) Second. All bedding and clothing coming from the infected city was burned, and while yellow fever cases developed in those who had become infected before leaving the city, none occurred in any other-is it not reasonable to suppose that the precautionary measures were responsible for the immunity?
Third. Since it is known that mosquitoes plentifully abound around the suburbs. as well as in the city of Memphis, and as no measures were adopted looking to the destruction of the pests, is it reasonable to suppose they would have confined their stings to the inhabitants of the city and permitted the camp to remain unmo lested ? ********** The above cases are cited to show that yellow fever may, and docs occur after exposure to the infection within less than the time required by the m'osquito route, and the mosquito is not the sole factor in spreading the disease., I could cite many hundreds. I h,a,ye seen it mvsclf. I understand that at the late meeting of the A. P. H. A. at Washington, there were "some emphatic remarks" made because of the lack of a more general acceptance of the dic tum that the mosquito is the sole agency in yellow fever epidemics. Those who have had much experience with the yellow fever do not accept it. It is not proven. They have seen the contrary demon strated too often. Until the inconsistency above pointed out can be "explained/* they will not be convinced; nor will it be safexto neglect to guard against the introduction of the disease by other agencies. Should it prove true that we have only the mosquito to deal with, it will be "a consummation devoutly to be wished/* and no one would rejoice more than yours truly and the "Red-Back.** It will then no longer be necessary to quarantine, or to perforate let ters in quest of the pesky things, and disinfect them, for fear they may contain mosquitoes-as is now practiced by the Marine Hos pital Service experts-who don't believe the infection can be car ried in any other way than in a mosquito's abdomen. Until that time I must still beg leave to differ with Brother Paul.